Originally Posted by dirk digler
The Oklahoma Legislature stated that “the possession of lighted tobacco in any form is a public nuisance and dangerous to the public health” and is the basis for the Oklahoma Smoking in Public Places and Indoor Workplaces.[i] This act prohibits smoking any tobacco product in “indoor area open to the public, public transportation or any indoor workplace, except where specifically allowed by law.”[ii]
State and city politicians (hell Senators and Reps on the national level even) are not known for crafting legally defensible laws consistently. BUT in these cases a court would likely ignore the nuisance aspect and move forward with the health aspect. Even then it would be a tough case to defend according to the standards established by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately we'll never see one of these go that far.
Saying that XYZ political body cited ABC as a reason doesn't make it valid. As someone pointed out earlier... sodomy laws were overturned yet I'm sure XYZ state had some bullshit reasoning cited in the law as it was written.
This is like me saying that blood doping is wrong and you countering by saying... but Lance Armstrong does it! Um, ok... that really doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.